Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preston Grassmann

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Aoidh (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Grassmann

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the man appears to have written a fair bit no one really seems to be writing about him the sources are lists of books and what looks like a self authored bio and I can't find anything better ©Geni (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IPs and socks blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Extropian73. SWinxy (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was able to find a review of Out of the Ruins on a magazine website, which I've added. I'll continue looking for others. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:1A1C:AD94:950A:DE9D (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some article links from Wikipedia, but given his work as an anthologist, there are many more. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:1A1C:AD94:950A:DE9D (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty of primary sources with a basic Google search. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:299C:EE96:9FE5:4A4F (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Liliana mentioned, primary sources should be avoided, but I agree that we should try to work with what we have. It's clear that he has a lot of work published. Yumi80 (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the provision of changing the bio. As an example of other author pages with a similar "notability," check Chris Kelso. Yumi80 (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a basic google search shows many primary source results. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:299C:EE96:9FE5:4A4F (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are abundant. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:299C:EE96:9FE5:4A4F (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Liliana mentioned above, we should avoid primary sources, if possible. The issue here is secondary source material. It's quite clear that he's published a lot of material, as you can see from a basic search online and the links to articles on Wikipedia (links on pages for China Mieville and Emily St. John Mandel, for example, with many more that haven't been linked). Yumi80 (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see above) Yumi80 (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned, this name has many links to articles on Wikipedia, as the man is an anthologist. Primary sources are easy to find. Extropian73 (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many more that haven't been linked yet. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:299C:EE96:9FE5:4A4F (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The process has begun to (de)orphanize the article. There are many links to the name from prominent writers on Wikipedia pages, including Emily St. John Mandel. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:299C:EE96:9FE5:4A4F (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wording of the bio may need to change due to lack of secondary sources, but he clearly has many links within Wikipedia and works published with a variety of well-known publications. Yumi80 (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the provision of changing the bio. There are many pages on Wikipedia with the same "notability" standards. Please check Chris Kelso for reference. Yumi80 (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yumi80, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kelso's notability (or lack thereof) has got zilch to do with Grassmann's notability. Also, please stop with the multiple voting. This is yer ~~third~~ fourth keep vote in this discussion, which is ~~two~~ three too many CiphriusKane (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong - the Wikipedia standards should apply to everyone. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:21FE:C2CA:AC9F:90F9 (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did ye even read the link I provided? CiphriusKane (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who originally PRODded the article, delete. I didn't find anything in terms of sources to that man's name when I googled him, and that's surprising - usually I'd find at least a few unreliable sources. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to secondary sources? There's a lot of material on his publications and biographies on various websites. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:299C:EE96:9FE5:4A4F (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources should be generally avoided. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking in sources - either primary or secondary. Lamona (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Honestly, I would have been tempted to CSD this for close paraphrasing. Comparing it to his Titan Books bio, there's some clear copypasting of sentences going on. Also, to address the keep votes - being prolific and being notable are two different things. What counts is in depth independent reliable sources (i.e. what others say about the subject), not how many times their name comes up on Google or Wikipedia, and everything that I'm seeing is either dependent on the subject (bios, their own work) or is a passing mention (the Locus Online source added by the IP just names Grassmann as the editor and lacks any depth about the subject) CiphriusKane (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A CSD doesn't make sense here. What others say about a subject are based on the subject himself. In truth, this isn't different from many other author pages on Wikipedia, as Yumi80 mentions below. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:21FE:C2CA:AC9F:90F9 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G12 - copyright infringement, G11 - blatant advertising. Other author pages don't look like a mirror of their official bio. And if the sources are relaying what Grassman is saying then it's not independent and therefore doesn't contribute to notability CiphriusKane (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yumi80 was blocked for being a sockpuppet of Extropian73, the article creator. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved all of their top-level votes into a {{hat}}. The /64 range has also been blocked for 1 week for the non-checkuser IPv6s by GirthSummit. SWinxy (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.